Allowed

Vivek Kumar Gupta and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Allahabad HC21 Apr 2023/3854/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings arising from a matrimonial dispute. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court held that since the parties had voluntarily settled the dispute and the compromise was verified by the trial court, continuing the trial would serve no useful purpose.

What did the court decide?

The entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.464 of 2017 against the appellants under the said sections were quashed.

Vivek Kumar Gupta and 3 Others Vs State of U.P… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3854 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Vivek Kumar Gupta And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jay Kumar Soni Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.

¶5

Ms. Nasreen Bano, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party No.2 by filing her vakalatnama in Court today, which is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Jay Kumar Soni, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Rajeev Kumar Verma, learned A.G.A. for the State, Ms. Nasreen Bano, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and perused the material available on record.

¶7

The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No.464 of 2017 (State vs. Vivek Kumar and others) arising out of Case Crime No.223 of 2016, under Sections 498-A, 323, 427, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Unnao, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Unnao.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that a first information report came to be lodged against the accused/ applicants on the basis of false facts in order to implicate the accused/ applicants.

¶9

His further submission is that there are vague and general allegations against all the accused/ applicants in the first information report, which do not constitute any offence as alleged in the first information report.

¶10

His next submission is that during investigation, no credible offence against the present accused/ applicants could be collected. Despite this fact, a charge sheet came to be laid against the present accused/ applicants.

¶11

His next submission is that the continuation of such proceeding is nothing but an abuse of process of this Court and malicious prosecution too. He has also submitted that as the dispute related to the matrimonial discord between the parties, the parties settled their dispute and filed a compromise, which has been sent for verification by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.12.2022 passed in Application U/s 482 No.8894 of 2022 titled as Vivek Kumar Gupta and others vs. State of U.P. and another.

¶12

His further submission is that pursuant to aforesaid order dated 01.12.2022, the learned trial court has verified the compromise vide order dated 12.12.2022. A copy of the same is annexed as annexure No.5 to the instant application.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicants, therefore, submits that having regard to the fact that the dispute between the parties was essentially matrimonial in nature, the parties settled their dispute. Therefore, the impugned criminal proceeding deserves to be quashed as the dispute-in-question is private in nature which does not have any adverse societal effect.

¶14

Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer. However, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 has very fairly admitted the fact that the parties have settled their dispute amicably and filed a compromise, which came to be verified by the learned trial court vide order dated 12.12.2022.

¶15

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others vs. State of Gujarat and another reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641 has laid down the following guidelines with regard to quashing of criminal proceedings as well regarding compromise in criminal proceedings in paragraphs 16 to 16.10 of the judgment, which is quoted below:

¶16

"16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions.

¶17

16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognizes and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court;

¶18

16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.

¶19

16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power;

¶20

16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court;

¶21

16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated;

¶22

16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity

¶23

or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences;

¶24

16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;

¶25

16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute;

¶26

16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and

¶27

16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8 and 16.9 above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."

¶28

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1489 of 2012 (Ramgopal and Another Vs. The State of M.P.), 2021 SCC OnLine SC 834 , has reiterated the guidelines regarding quashing of criminal proceedings in view of compromise. Following has been observed in paragraph 18-19:-

¶29

"18. It is now a well crystalized axiom that plenary jurisdiction of this Court to impart complete justice under Article 142 cannot ipso facto be limited or restricted by ordinary statutory provisions. It is also noteworthy that even in the absence of an express provision akin to Section 482 Cr.P.C. conferring powers on the Supreme Court to abrogate and set aside criminal proceedings, the

¶30

jurisdiction exercisable under Article 142 of the Constitution embraces this Court with scopious powers to quash criminal proceedings also, so as to secure complete justice. In doing so, due regard must be given to the overarching objective of sentencing in the criminal justice system, which is grounded on the sub-lime philosophy of maintenance of peace of the collective and that the rationale of placing an individual behind bars is aimed at his reformation.

¶31

19. We thus sum-up and hold that as opposed to Section 320 Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the parties in respect of offences 'compoundable' within the statutory framework, the extra-ordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercise carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant considerations."

¶32

(Emphasis supplied)

¶33

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramawatar v. State of M.P. reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 966 , while adverting its judgment rendered in Ramgopal's case (supra) , in para no.11 has held as under:-

¶34

"11. The Court in Ramgopal (Supra) further postulated that criminal proceedings involving non-heinous offences or offences which are predominantly of a private nature, could be set aside at any stage of the proceedings, including at the appellate level. The Court, however, being conscious of the fact that unscrupulous offenders may attempt to escape their criminal liabilities by securing a compromise through brute force, threats, bribes, or other such unethical and illegal means, cautioned that in cases where a settlement is struck post-conviction, the Courts should, inter-alia, carefully examine the fashion in which the compromise has been arrived at, as well as, the conduct of the accused before and after the incident in question. While concluding, the Court also formulated certain guidelines and

¶35

held:

¶36

"19… Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind : (i) Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant considerations.""

¶37

Adverting to the facts of this case, it is not disputed that the present first information report was an outcome of matrimonial dispute between the parties i.e. opposite party No.2 and the applicants, which is an overwhelming element of a private dispute. Therefore, having regard to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rangappa Javoor vs. The State of Karnataka and another reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 74 and Jasmair Singh and another vs. State of Haryana and another reported in (2022) 9 SCC 73 in respect of quashing of criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties and considering the aforesaid overall facts and circumstances of the present case, submissions made by counsel for parties and upon the perusal of material on record, it appears that during pendency of the present application, parties have already settled their dispute voluntarily and amicably. Compromise so entered into by parties have been verified by learned court below. This fact has not been denied by learned counsel for opposite parties. As of now, no difference exists between parties. Consequently, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of above mentioned case. In view of compromise entered into by the parties, chances of conviction of accused applicants are also remote and bleak. Resultantly, continuation of proceedings would thus, itself cause injustice to

¶38

parties. The instant trial would only entail loss of precious judicial time in a futile pursuit.

¶39

In view of above, the instant application succeeds and is liable to be allowed.

¶40

Accordingly, the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed . Consequently, the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No.464 of 2017 (State vs. Vivek Kumar and others) arising out of Case Crime No.223 of 2016, under Sections 498-A, 323, 427, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Unnao, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Unnao, is, hereby, quashed.

¶41

Interim order, if any, stands discharged.

¶42

OfÏce is directed to send a copy of this order to the Court concerned through email/fax immediately for necessary compliance.

¶43

(Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.)

¶44

Order Date :- 21.4.2023 cks/-

¶45

Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA KANT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vivek Kumar Gupta and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vivek Kumar Gupta and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Krishna Kumari Verma @ Smt. Saroj Verma Vs the Addl. Principal Judge Family Court Lucknow and Another

Raghu Nath Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another

Sahel Jafari @ Babadu @ Badshah Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Akash Kumar Rajbhar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. and Others

Gursewak Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Affairs, Lko. and Another

Vishnu Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another